Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 83:2 (Fall 2021)
Article: A Brief Rejoinder To Kevin Deyoung
Author: Nathan D. Shannon

WTJ 83:2 (Fall 2021) p. 267

A Brief Rejoinder To Kevin Deyoung

Nathan D. Shannon

Nathan D. Shannon is Adjunct Professor of Apologetics and Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary.

“No account of God exists in created reality by any reason except by this theology of Christ.”1 --Franciscus Junius

I extend thanks to Kevin DeYoung for his interest in my article and to the editors for this opportunity to engage his critique. I trust that in what follows—the tricky business of public disagreement—due respect for DeYoung and for our pastoral office is clear.

I read DeYoung’s contribution with benefit, but in my estimation he misrepresents both my article and the relevant sections of Junius’s Treatise. Misrepresentation is due, in nearly every instance, to mistaking revelation for theology. Where Junius affirms natural revelation, DeYoung takes him as expressing a positive view of natural theology. Where I have highlighted Junius’s critique of natural theology, DeYoung responds as though I have rejected natural revelation and counters with statements from the Treatise which in reality describe revelation, not theology. Much of this confusion revolves around the use of the term “natural theology.” Accordingly, in what follows I explore a few examples and attempt to clarify my interpretation of Junius.

DeYoung’s thesis, as follows, is one example: “A careful reading of Junius demonstrates the opposite conclusion from Shannon’s, namely, that natural theology—while imperfect and unable to save—is nevertheless divine revelation and belongs to the category of true theology.” DeYoung says both that “natural theology … is … divine revelation,” and that “natural theology … belongs to the category of true theology.” Here as elsewhere, it is difficult to distinguish definition from description, but we may assume that if something is revelation then it is true. But if that is all that the statement claims, there is no disagreement. That is, all affirm that natural theology is a form of divine revelation and therefore reveals truth or conveys true knowledge of God. But since all of creation—even human consciousness—is a form of divine revelation, this

WTJ 83:2 (Fall 2021) p. 268

is not an informative claim. The distinction between revelation and theology is missing here, but that distinction must be kept in view, so that the question of the soundness of theological method is a meaningful one. Therefore, if this statement does indeed identify disagreement, then “natural theology” must mean precisely two different things at the same time. That is, “natural theology” appears t...